Doctor responds, “Well.. he would, but he is taking slightly too long to recover and we really need the life-support machine for newer patients with more medical coverage. This is the new official policy from the medical director. However, to accomodate you, we will give you three coupons to our cafeteria for 25% off your next purchase. Market data shows this is the most effective solution. Thank you for your understanding, visiting hours are now over. “

Brilliant

Of course,the medical director is a bean counter with an MBA,not a medical professional

There was no malice, but careless acts of motivated self interest can still have the same impact as malicious acts.

Yeah malice is a weird term to use about a company and it's customers.
You're dead on here though, "data driven" often equals destructive policies.

IMO anyway, it should be that if I freeze my system right now, and ten years from now have to get a new computer, I should be able to instal the same OS and get the same products I paid for. Barring a company going out of business etc.

I still do not get why this is a big deal? no one is expecting to run Spektral Delay on Catalina or Windows 10 with zero issues, but if you have an older mac or PC with XP and Snow Leopard etc. you should be able to authorize Spektral Delay. Setting up a small server for the at most couple hundred people a year doing this shouldn't be an issue? Put a "use at your own risk" clause into Service center and be done with it.

If you wouldn't call the intial decision (to discontinue activation) malicious, then what would you call it? Data driven?

They Maliciously hacked my computer and destroyed service center last year Mario.... and that does not inspire confidence.. and I was told that a third of their workforce internationally were retrenched... maybe 1/5 of their workforce in Berlin was laid off

Doctor responds, “Well.. he would, but he is taking slightly too long to recover and we really need the life-support machine for newer patients with more medical coverage. This is the new official policy from the medical director. However, to accomodate you, we will give you three coupons to our cafeteria for 25% off your next purchase. Market data shows this is the most effective solution. Thank you for your understanding, visiting hours are now over. “

Great. Although these analogies never fit one hundred percent.

NI has fallen into the trap of completely underestimating user interest -
and has very carelessly made a bad decision. NI is now trying to
make up for this - as best as it can.

A fact - for studio owners and composers alike - is that even very old
synthesizers or Sound libraries - because of their uniqueness, and
because of the total recall of previous productions - are very
important. These must not simply be pulled out from under your feet.

But the whole matter has - even if NI doesn't want it to - another, more
general aspect: The credibility of terms and conditions and the
efficiency of copy protection has been considerably dampened. It
shows how a very reputable company suddenly makes decisions that
are real nightmares for some of its customers, and that even make
software purchase decisions generally problematic.

Native Instruments has the data to see how many people were authorizing the products and made a decision based on that. It's possible no one at all had authorized a product more than once making it seem it was not necessary. So one could say it can be anything from a lack of foresight to a lack of empathy for how other people work.

I don't have any of these products, but I am still concerned because one has to wonder about currently-supported products and what happens when they inevitably get discontinued or NI faces the bus factor. People have been burned by similar situations when smaller developers disappear and there is an erroneous assumption big corps are somewhat immune to this. This announcement crystallized that possibility.

So it is more or less confirmed that old codebases aren't easily refactored or rebuilt. So on that assumption, what is the failsafe for current products? Can they be built twice, one for release, and a private one with an "offline" DRM system that can be released if need be? But what is the failsafe for the bus factor? The serial number/local license devs are all good. Seaweed Audio is the only developer I know of that has announced a reasonable procedure for sunsetting a challenge-response system. I don't think it's tempting fate, nothing lasts forever, and I appreciate being realistic. It is aggravating when it is preventable because devs stuck their head into the ground.

It's not just NI, it's about all devs that use challenge-response DRM. But NI's the most accountable right now.

You left out the part where it says that the patient is already on life support for 15 years or longer.

Plus the reactions from other patients and former patients :
"All hospitals are evil"
"I want to be able to use some antique life support system and i want the hospital to pay for it"
"I've read somewhere 20 years ago that the hospital gave 4 coupons"
"I'm using extensive vocabulaire but have no real understanding of the subject on hand"
"My nephew has a slight cough, can i have a coupon too ?"
"I heard a rumour that the doctor lost some other patients too"
"The hospital fired some nurses last year and that's why this happens"
"Everybody who has ever been in that hospital should get coupons"
"Every hospital should have tens of thousands of life support systems"
"The hospital has to keep spending money on that patient forever, but i'm not gonna pay for it"
"I was in that hospital many years ago, didn't like the carpets, and therefor i just complain in every conversation about that hospital"

You left out the part where it says that the patient is already on life support for 15 years or longer.

It was talking in the context of empathy and "data driven" decision making. You're back hammering the old "x thousand year old" argument again.

That's NOT the issue here. The issue is COPY PROTECTION. Nothing more or less. People would rather NOT have NI involved in any way. The very best result would be to get rid of them out of the picture entirely! Just take the copy protection locks off, and give people the ability to install by themselves.

And, if they bizarrely demand that they retain full control over whether you can install this elderly software, then at least give written promises so users don't face the same issues x years down the line! But much better to modify things so we never need NI's involvement.

It was talking in the context of empathy and "data driven" decision making. You're back hammering the old "x thousand year old" argument again.

That's NOT the issue here. The issue is COPY PROTECTION. Nothing more or less. People would rather NOT have NI involved in any way. The very best result would be to get rid of them out of the picture entirely! Just take the copy protection locks off, and give people the ability to install by themselves.

And, if they bizarrely demand that they retain full control over whether you can install this elderly software, then at least give written promises so users don't face the same issues x years down the line! But much better to modify things so we never need NI's involvement.

Get it yet? Apparently not.

Cool story bro. Only the issue isn't the copy protection. The issue is that some of you think you're entitled to keep using a software product forever for free. You seem to think that even after using the products for 15 years or longer, you're still entitled to keep using it. And you even want NI to put money and resources towards it, just so you can keep using it.